The European Commission says that there is no reason for “crisis-intervention” after study shows that pesticides were much more toxic than their guidelines suggest.
Recently GMWatch announced a new study by Prof GE Seralini's team which found that pesticide formulations are much more toxic than the active ingredient that is tested and assessed for regulatory purposes. The study was conducted in vitro (test tubes) rather than in vivo (animals).
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15279
Entirely predictably (see article below), the pesticide industry has responded to this latest study by stating that in vitro exposure "not relevant" to human/mammalian in vivo exposure.
A spokesman from the European Commission also said there is no need for action, adding that Seralini's team did not follow some unspoken "rules".
That's probably code for "Their study doesn't conform to OECD protocols", a set of protocols designed by industry and governments for industry to follow for safety tests performed for regulatory authorisation.
In this case, that would have meant that the tests should have been done on animals.
We are all too familiar with this "see no evil" attitude of regulators and industry. Unfortunately for those who would like to see animal testing reduced or eliminated, regulators and industry take no notice whatsoever of in vitro tests.
The only way to force them to listen would be to test in vivo (in animals) the levels found toxic in vitro, and confirm the toxicity; and/or to cite existing animal studies showing that these levels are toxic in vivo.
We agree that in vitro is not the "last word" on real-life toxicity, since many things can happen in the living organism that don't happen in test tubes.
However, it is the responsibility of regulators to follow up in vitro findings of toxicity by demanding in vivo tests.
The scientifically correct response to concerning findings in vitro is, as is the norm in medical research, to follow up the findings in animal experiments.
The incorrect - and criminally irresponsible - response is to ignore the findings.
Seralini's latest study shows that in vitro, the complete formulation is more toxic than the isolated ingredient and therefore the regulators must demand that industry animal (in vivo) studies on pesticides must be done again on the complete formulation.
What we see in the case of this industry and regulatory response is a kind of institutionalised stupidity that has become the norm in the world of pesticides and GMOs.
Another form of such stupidity is to be blind to the most obvious negative impacts of a product or technology until it has become so blindingly obvious that even the industry has started to phase it out - only to replace it with some newer and less tested risky product.
In this world of upside-down ethics, publicly funded independent scientists are left with the job of proving to the satisfaction of industry and regulators that pesticides are dangerous.
All the same, even if strong studies are carried out by independent scientists, as with many done by the Ramazzini Institute on substances like aspartame, they are ignored or dismissed as inadequate by the grim "double act" of industry and regulators.
It's tempting to conclude that this system is corrupt beyond reform. Citizens must act to protect themselves against risky exposures, doing the regulators' job for them.
Incidentally, the group of 41 scientists requesting that Seralini's study be reinstated now totals 83. If you're a scientist and you agree, please add your signature:
http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/Statement#signed-by
---
Brussels downplays importance of pesticide toxicity report
Euractiv.com, 5 February 2014
http://www.euractiv.com/cap/crisis-intervention-needed-pesti-news-533257
The European Commission says that there is no reason for “crisis-intervention” after a French researcher claimed he had proof that pesticides were much more toxic than their guidelines suggest.
Background
The European Commission says that pesticides can have severe undesirable effects if they are not strictly regulated.
In EU law, the term pesticides refers to insecticides, acaricides, herbicides, fungicides, plant growth regulators, rodenticides, biocides and veterinary medicines.
Pesticides have to undergo strict testing before they can be approved in the EU. They cannot be used in the EU unless it is scientifically proven that they do not harm people's health, do not cause "unacceptable effects on the environment", and that they are effective against pests.
The study, by biologist Gilles-Eric Séralini, looks into the measurements used to set the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of Monsanto's Roundup pesticides.
The research showed that if the so-called adjuvants used in pesticides are included in the calculations, they amplify the toxicity of their active ingredient greatly.
“Adjuvants in pesticides are generally declared as inerts, and for this reason they are not tested in long-term regulatory experiments. It is thus very surprising that they amplify up to 1000 times the toxicity of their active principle in 100% of the cases where they are indicated to be present by the manufacturer,” the study says.
Séralini claimed that human cells began to commit suicide when exposed to the pesticides in petri dish experiments.
A first analysis by the European Commission’s health and consumer’s directorate showed that the report did not provide any new information.
“It looks like that, in this paper, the test design is very much targeted towards provoking an expected effect, so no reason for a ‘crisis-intervention’,” said Frédéric Vincent, the spokesperson for health and consumer affairs.
“As you know, there are some rules to be followed when new scientific evidence is supposed to have been put forward by a researcher,” he added. “M. Séralini did not really follow them on his GM study some months ago.”
Séralini’s previous study, which showed that rats exposed to Monsanto genetically modified maize and Roundup pesticides, was retracted after fierce criticism of its research methods. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said the study was “of insufficient scientific quality”. Last week a group of 41 scientists requested that the report be reinstated.
The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) - whose members include many of the world’s largest pesticides manufacturers, including BASF chemicals, Dow Agrosciences, Monsanto, and Syngenta - said the new research paper was not up to sufficient standards of scientific enquiry to contribute to the literature on pesticide safety.
“The testing model used by the authors is inappropriate for drawing any conclusions regarding real life toxicity relevant to humans,” read an ECPA statement.